MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2333855068 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.130019

We Still Don’t Know How to Taper Glucocorticoids in Rheumatoid Arthritis, and We Can Do Better

2013· editorial· en· W2333855068 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elizabeth R. Volkmann, Shadi Rezai, Simon Tarp, Thasia Woodworth, Daniel E. Fürst

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2013
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGilead SciencesNational Institutes of HealthPfizerGenentechAmgen
KeywordsMedicineRheumatoid arthritisAdverse effectInternal medicineClinical trialRheumatology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rheumatologists, internists, residents, and fellows frequently ask, “How do you taper glucocorticoids in rheumatoid arthritis?” Despite controlling symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis (RA)1 and slowing progression of radiological joint damage in early RA2, low-dose glucocorticoids (GC) are associated with a plethora of chronic adverse effects, including diabetes mellitus, hypertension, atherosclerosis, weight gain, osteoporosis, skin fragility, Cushingoid appearance, and myopathy, and are also associated with increased risk of infection, cardiovascular events, depression, cataracts, and skin atrophy3,4. To prevent or minimize these effects, GC tapering to the lowest dose necessary to maintain control of disease activity is recommended5. However, strategies to taper GC vary, and are mostly described based on expert opinion. No clinical trials have directly examined, much less compared, different GC tapering regimens in RA5. Withdrawal of GC may also precipitate adverse events, including flare, adrenal insufficiency, and GC withdrawal syndrome6. To attempt to answer this frequent question, we performed a systematic literature review to assess the influence of tapering regimens on successful GC withdrawal, as well as clinical outcomes. We searched PubMed and Cochrane Central to identify publications from January 1972 to February 2011 (detailed search strategy available on request). Search terms comprised 4 blocks that were combined with Cochrane hedge, “methodological filter for clinical trials.” The first block addressed disease (RA in adults); the second and third, intervention (GC/related terms AND tapering); and the fourth, outcome (withdrawal/dose reduction, effect on disease activity). We double-extracted all titles and abstracts according to the following: inclusion criteria: (a) adult patients with RA; (b) studies in which GC and related terms (e.g., corticosteroids, prednisone, prednisolone, etc.) were used; and exclusion criteria: (a) case report or case series with < 20 patients; (b) editorials, review articles, letters, opinions, etc. Two of … Address correspondence to Dr. D.E. Furst, Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, 32-59 Rehabilitation Center, 1000 Veteran Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA. E-mail: defurst{at}mednet.ucla.edu

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.118
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.131

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.118
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.006
Bibliometrics0.0130.019
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.009
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0050.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Rheumatology→Same topicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies→French-language works237,207→